Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
About Literature / Hobbyist EnuoCaleUnited States Groups :icondarel-phiforumclub: DARel-PhiForumClub
Those who ride the Megiddo Ark..
Recent Activity
Deviant for 9 Years
Needs Core Membership
Statistics 154 Deviations 2,350 Comments 29,891 Pageviews

Newest Deviations





Relevant paper:…

Brute emergence, or strong emergentism is the anti-scientific theory that things are capable of having properties that aren't built out of the properties of the building blocks they are made out of. The other form of emergence, known as weak emergence is compatible with what we know about science, because many things can have properties at a macro scale that are meaningless at a mini-scale, but that you can extrapolate how they would act when put together. For instance, one water molecule is not properly defined as a fluid when sitting by itself, but it has the properties that are called fluid when a lot of them are put together to react. Etc etc. Most people don't think about this day to day, but are fine with the idea once having it explained to them for the most part.

However, it seems like there's one obvious exception that atheists are almost as likely to demand be treated as an exception as religious people are. And that's consciousness. Despite being okay with recognizing strong emergence as non scientific in other areas, suddenly they are okay wiggling and skirting around the fact that many of them think consciousness simply comes into existence out of nowhere at specific times, rather than being an abstract universal property of the world in general that simply manifests in more visible ways at times. And will actively shy away from having to admit that abstract latent conscious properties would have to be immanent in the physical world as a whole in all matter in less visible ways to make sense of its presence scientifically. In other words, its more obvious appearance being a case of weak emergence, rather than strong emergence.

The exception, or "strong emergence" as it is called has another historical name. That name being "magic." What's more, if you accept that things can generate properties that aren't built out of their building blocks, its inconsistent to not accept this as a viable explanation at other times. Since it would be rather bizarre if this happened in only exactly one type of case in all the universe. (To say nothing about the fact that if the properties aren't part of matter itself, its unclear where it even comes from.)
Its far from uncommon when browsing the internet to see people who will not only assert these things, but act like they're obvious or inherently flow from atheism for some reason. (?) Nevermind that that's not true, and in ethics relativism is a fringe theory, and nihilism is not much higher. This isn't about that. although it is also true that if more people understood what ethics referred to that those misconceptions would clear up as well.

What its about is the fact that a lot of people, usually who are atheist will CLAIM to be some kind of nihilist or relativist, yet in practice not actually be one. Taking some random obvious example there's the fact that when talking about religious people incorrectly being against homosexuality they will try to use ethical argumentation on why they shouldn't be or assert that its wrong somehow. Ignoring that you can't profess a lack of universalism, followed by trying to derive some kind of statements that people shouldn't do this.

There's no "morality isn't real" that somehow appeals to empathy result in you still constructing some kind of ideal situation from that you should criticize them for not following. Since profession of nihilism is literally arguing against that very concept. In a nihilist world they have no reason at all to not do whatever they want, even if they do not themselves profess nihilism. And you can't try to project that empathy is some kind of path that deserves less criticism either, since you're still trying to imply that there is a meaningful value in some sense that they can interact with. Which no matter how you try to reword it or make it about the person acting or "health" you are ultimately doing since in some sense you think values draw some kind of imperative or better result. The fact that they try to push an incorrect realist system isn't incorrect in nihilism because nothing is. You can't derive some kind of ideal of being more tolerant due to not having a reason not to in a world where there's also no reason to do so and some want to do otherwise. And no means to validly criticize them either.

And even ignoring this, empathy is an incoherent justifier anyways of course, since if they feel emotionally contented doing something else and you try to make an appeal to internal emotions, then you're saying something that is meaningless to them, since their emotions are already satiated. (and that's not even getting into how bad using empathy or emotions to justify this is.)

For the realist or universalist, there is of course no problem. There hasn't really been a meaningfully defensible argument against homosexuality in a long time, in more or less any coherent theory of ethics, and there are many showing the harm of being against it. So for the realist this is easy. The problem is of course anti realists using arguments that based on their accepted system effectively mean nothing, but which they use as if realism had validity. Ignoring that its another contradiction to assert that morality is not real but that if it was you know what it would be like.
One common trend among the more dawkins-jerking atheists who really like talking about how smart they think they are, but without having much to show for it is insisting that many religious people's beliefs are based on a really keen desire to not have to face death which "obviously" should be viewed as a conclusion to "your" existence. And so beliefs in an afterlife just express a hope for something they want to be true, but have little evidence for. Which admittedly is not that necessarily incorrect of a claim many times.

However, the problem here seems to be that these same atheists are insinuating that they personally don't do this. Which isn't true.

The main issue here seems to be that atheists intuitively assume/hope that they have some kind of substantive self that persists over time, but which ends at death. They seem fine accepting that death is the end, but not actually facing the real ramifications of lack of substance dualism. Or the fact that without design, their intuitive assumption that this is true is based on nothing.

Nothing in the physical world hints that there's a persisting self at all, much less one that is fundamentally the same being for the entirety of its existence. Biological appeals have to face the fact that not only does their matter get cycled out, but that they don't even inherently qualify different frames of consciousness as being one ontologically single being, nor is there any reason to assume they should. Psychological ones have to face that their process can be duplicated in ways that even the people claiming them admit would have trouble being defined as a singular entity. And likewise, there's little to even hint that thoughts are a fundamentally continuous linked stream, much less that if they were it was evidence that it was an ontologically single entity. 

People can occasionally half admit this, but almost always scramble to find ways to not have to actually accept the ramifications. That most of these same people can't even vaguely cobble together a meaningful argument for long term persistence of a singular mind, and that they believe in some form of it because, like religious people, they're just hoping that something they have an easier time accepting is the case. And when they are faced with this, the knee jerk assumption is never one of acceptance, but always "but that must be wrong because I strongly feel like it should be, and for reasons I can't state" or at absolute best someone who pretends to accept it, but still obviously lives under the assumption that its wrong.

The question then is, what's the point of acting like its some gross level of misplaced optimism to want to persist in some cases its unlikely when one is just going to turn around and do the same thing in others. Especially noting that for various reasons, if a persisting self did exist, it would hint at possible ways it could beyond death as well.



Artist | Hobbyist | Literature
United States
Well, I guess this is where I'll put my more important book-related things. For the time being, they'll be divided by chapter names, or whatever; since the whole thing doesn't have a title yet. Also, some of them are kind of like drafts. I'll fix them once I'm actually good at writing.…

Note. This is all in the order it's supposed to come in. However, there are obviously big gaps in-between, for parts that haven't been written yet.


EnuoCale has started a donation pool!
155 / 1,300,000
Mostly these will end up for the group.

You must be logged in to donate.
  • :iconmagnius159:
    Donated Dec 7, 2011, 5:30:00 AM
  • :iconkalypher:
    Donated Dec 2, 2011, 12:21:35 AM
  • :icondezenerate:
    Donated Aug 20, 2011, 10:18:50 AM
  • :iconlynneblue:
    Donated Jan 16, 2011, 12:40:20 AM
  • :iconisa-lacrymosa:
    Donated Jan 12, 2011, 7:51:07 PM
  • :iconlucid-death:
    Donated Nov 6, 2010, 3:00:28 PM
  • :iconqueen-of-disturbia:
    Donated Nov 1, 2010, 1:04:41 AM

AdCast - Ads from the Community



Add a Comment:
EbolaBearSoda Featured By Owner Sep 17, 2015
h-irsch Featured By Owner Edited Jan 4, 2015  Student Digital Artist
To continue our discussion, may you revise your question once more?

I apologize for how late of a response this is... ATT has been a bugger.
EnuoCale Featured By Owner Jan 4, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
I have no clue who you are.
h-irsch Featured By Owner Jan 4, 2015  Student Digital Artist
It's good to see you lack a memory.
THEIROLIA Featured By Owner Nov 23, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Thanks for the llama!!
skulkey Featured By Owner Jul 6, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
grah, they closed that thread.  here's my response:

it's in part why people have so much difficulty understanding the trinity (you see atheists asking questions about it a lot, because they're going on christian descriptions of it), and why the holy spirit (often translated "holy ghost")  is rarely mentioned, let alone understood. people tend toward the profane and prosaic, regardless of worldview, really.  shit, it's why the infinite is so misunderstood.  people want to subdivide it into chunks they can understand (which will always leave you with an undefined "chunk", but that's neither here nor there...). even scientists or philosophers that work with it often fall back on equations or logic to put it into relate-able terms.  but it's always undefined, essentially.  there is no way to put it into human terms except by metaphor or allegory, and even then they more often than not fall short.

hah, i was just reminded of how even christians, who claim knowledge of the infinite in terms of their god, so very frequently fail at understanding an infinite universe (they always want to know "what happened before?".  before the big bang, before the universe, before before before.  until at last they conclude "god must have been before, and started it all - completely failing right there, as they answered one infinite question with an infinite answer).  so to them, their god is both discrete (understandable) and infinite (completely misunderstood).

so what are we left with?  gnosis, as far as i can tell.  there's really no other way.  apprehension of the discrete is a failure (and really that's what our brains are designed to do).
EnuoCale Featured By Owner Jul 6, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
I don't get why the trinity confuses people anyways. Its not that complicated to envision one thing that has three minds.

However, hopefully I can be useful on that front. I started making compressed study guides for each individual general area of philosophy with descriptions in as simple and straightforward of language as possible, that are expressed as simply as possible. Originally, I started working on them in part for me, to make sure I knew all the important aspects for subjects that I didn't know about yet on at least a surface level, in part for :iconwhatonearth: since she's far too lazy to actually learn everything the long way, and in part to make sure that anyone I needed to be could be reasonably acquainted with most topics. But once I started actually making them, I realized that this simple and straightforward of study guides don't really exist anywhere I know of on the internet, and so these are actually fairly valuable to get out. I shared my first one with /smtg/, but nothing beyond that.

Of course I could hold on to them. Once I finish deciding whether I'm going to make a new religion or abstract "movement" / group / whatever I'm doing, maybe I could put them on my site to make it something that people are more likely to come to in general. If I have a large number of study guides by then, it'll artificially be a traffic generator and conduit for my teachings to get out. Oho. :ninjaplot:
mastemaplz Featured By Owner May 11, 2014
holla holla get macca
EnuoCale Featured By Owner May 13, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
>There are people right now who are legitimately frat boy autistic libertarian chaos aligned gaians.
Malintra-Shadowmoon Featured By Owner Jan 23, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Thanks so much for paying a visit to :iconthewayofloveandlight: :heart:
Add a Comment: